Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T04:58:06.480Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interaction and Perception of Interaction with 3D Objects during Design Activities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2022

T. Vuletic ,
A. Duffy ,
C. McTeague ,
L. Hay ,
G. Campbell  and
M. Grealy
T. Vuletic*
Affiliation:
University of Strathclyde, United Kingdom
A. Duffy
Affiliation:
University of Strathclyde, United Kingdom
C. McTeague
Affiliation:
University of Strathclyde, United Kingdom
L. Hay
Affiliation:
University of Strathclyde, United Kingdom
G. Campbell
Affiliation:
University of Strathclyde, United Kingdom
M. Grealy
Affiliation:
University of Strathclyde, United Kingdom
*
tijana.vuletic@strath.ac.uk

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Post study questionnaires are used in design studies to uncover data about design reasoning and intent. A study was conducted where activities the study participants performed were compared to the participants’ statements about those activities, collected immediately after the study via a questionnaire. The goal was to explore the reliability of post study evaluations. Disagreements between performed and reported activities were identified, and recommendations made to, where possible, include more objective measures of design activity.

Keywords

design activitiesresearch methodologies and methodsdesign researchgesture research
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 2: DESIGN2022 , May 2022 , pp. 951 - 960
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2022.

References

Badke-Schaub, P. and Frankenberger, E., 1999. Analysis of design projects. Design Studies, 20(5), pp.465–480. 10.1016/s0142-694x(99)00017-4Google Scholar
Beringer, N., 2001, April. Evoking gestures in SmartKom-Design of the graphical user interface. In International Gesture Workshop (pp. 228-240). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. 10.1007/3-540-47873-6_25Google Scholar
Chandrasegaran, S., Ramanujan, D. and Elmqvist, N., 2018, June. How Do Sketching and Non-Sketching Actions Convey Design Intent?. In Proceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference (pp. 373-385). 10.1145/3196709.3196723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, N., 2001. Design cognition: Results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity. In Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education (pp. 79-103). Elsevier Science. 10.1016/B978-008043868-9/50005-XGoogle Scholar
Findlater, L., Lee, B. and Wobbrock, J., 2012, May. Beyond QWERTY: augmenting touch screen keyboards with multi-touch gestures for non-alphanumeric input. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2679-2682). ACM. 10.1145/2207676.2208660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, L., Duffy, A.H., McTeague, C., Pidgeon, L.M., Vuletic, T. and Grealy, M., 2017. A systematic review of protocol studies on conceptual design cognition: Design as search and exploration. Design Science, 3. 10.1017/dsj.2017.11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jansson, D.G. and Smith, S.M., 1991. Design fixation. Design studies, 12(1), pp.3–11. 10.1016/0142-694x(91)90003-fCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, Hao, and Yen, C.. “Protocol analysis in design research: a review.” Journal Paper 78, no. 24 (2009): 16.Google Scholar
Junco, R., 2013. Comparing actual and self-reported measures of Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), pp.626–631. 10.1016/j.chb.2012.11.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krippendorff, K., 1989. Product semantics: A triangulation and four design theories.Google Scholar
Krippendorff, K., 2004. Reliability in content analysis: Some common misconceptions and recommendations. Human communication research, 30(3), pp.411–433. 10.1093/hcr/30.3.411Google Scholar
List, J.A. and Gallet, C.A., 2001. What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values?. Environmental and resource economics, 20(3), pp.241–254. 10.1023/A:1012791822804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parry, D.A., Davidson, B.I., Sewall, C.J., Fisher, J.T., Mieczkowski, H. and Quintana, D.S., 2021. A systematic review and meta-analysis of discrepancies between logged and self-reported digital media use. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(11), pp.1535–1547. 10.1038/s41562-021-01117-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Price, J.H. and Murnan, J., 2004. Research limitations and the necessity of reporting them. 10.1080/19325037.2004.10603611Google Scholar
Pedgley, O., 2007. Capturing and analysing own design activity. Design studies, 28(5), pp.463–483. 10.1016/j.destud.2007.02.004Google Scholar
Perry, G.T. and Krippendorff, K., 2013. On the reliability of identifying design moves in protocol analysis. Design Studies, 34(5), pp.612–635. 10.1016/j.destud.2013.02.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piumsomboon, T., Clark, A., Billinghurst, M. and Cockburn, A., 2013, September. User-defined gestures for augmented reality. In IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 282-299). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. 10.1007/978-3-642-40480-1_18Google Scholar
Römer, A., Pache, M., Weißhahn, G., Lindemann, U. and Hacker, W., 2001. Effort-saving product representations in design—results of a questionnaire survey. Design studies, 22(6), pp.473–491. 10.1016/s0142-694x(01)00003-5Google Scholar
Shavelson, Richard J., Phillips, Dennis C., Towne, Lisa, and Feuer, Michael J.. “On the science of education design studies.” Educational researcher 32, no. 1 (2003): 25–28. 10.3102/0013189x032001025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsandilas, T., 2018. Fallacies of agreement: A critical review of consensus assessment methods for gesture elicitation. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 25(3), p.18. 10.1145/3182168Google Scholar
Vatavu, R.D. and Wobbrock, J.O., 2015, April. Formalizing agreement analysis for elicitation studies: New measures, significance test, and toolkit. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1325-1334). ACM. 10.1145/2702123.2702223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vuletic, T., Duffy, A., McTeague, C., Hay, L., Brisco, R., Campbell, G. and Grealy, M., 2021. A novel user-based gesture vocabulary for conceptual design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 150, p.102609. 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102609Google Scholar
Wobbrock, J.O., Morris, M.R. and Wilson, A.D., 2009, April. User-defined gestures for surface computing. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1083-1092). ACM. 10.1145/1518701.1518866Google Scholar
Yilmaz, S., Seifert, C.M., 2011. Creativity through design heuristics: A case study of expert product design. Design Studies, Volume 32, Issue 4, Pages 384–415, 10.1016/j.destud.2011.01.003.Google Scholar